Allahabad High Court
Meena Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 July, 2023
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:142998-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13582 of 2023 Petitioner :- Meena Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chetan Chatterjee Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
2. Present writ petition is preferred for direction commanding the respondents to shift Electric Pole from the bhumidhari land of the petitioner.
3. Petitioners claim to be bhumidhar of Khasra No. 923 situated in village Koiriyapar, Tehsil Sadar, Police Station Mohammadabad, District Mau. It is alleged that the respondent-Electricity Department installed an electric pole over the land of the petitioner.
4. Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 submits that as per the order dated 16.12.2022, which is appended as annexure no.4 to the writ petition, it transpires that the electricity wire was in existence and when, the petitioner moved an application for shifting of electricity wire/pole, the amount had been quantified and that was also adequately informed to the petitioner. Instead of depositing the said amount, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Divison Bench of this Court in Deva Raj Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow & Ors., AIR 1977 Allahabad 452.
5. In Deva Raj Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow & Ors., AIR 1977 Allahabad 452, a Division Bench of this Court had examined the provisions of Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which is similar to the provisions of Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and observed that in view of the notification issued by the State Government under Section 51 of the 1910 Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraphs Act, the respondents have the power to instal the towers on the land owned by a person.
6. Similarly the Madras High Court, in E. Venkatesan & Ors. Vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madras & Ors., AIR 1977 Madras 64 while dealing with the powers under Section 51 of the Act of 1910, also observed :-
"From the above settled position of law, it is clear that when the Electricity Board exercises power under Section 51 of the Electricity Act read with Section 10 of the Telegraphs Act, they are not acquiring any land. They are only making use of the land for the purpose of laying electricity lines for which full compensation is given for the damage caused. It is also clear therefrom that no notice is required to the owner before laying the poles or constructing any tower, nor any consent is required from them."
7. This Court, in Writ C No.29995 of 2016 (Pooran Singh and 30 others vs. State of UP and 3 ors) decided on 5.7.2016, has observed that the construction of transmission power service lines cannot be stopped for want of payment of compensation. However, an appropriate direction can be issued to the competent authority for determining the compensation in accordance with law and pay the same to the tenure holders over whose land the towers are being erected.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Needless to say, in case, the petitioner deposits the requisite amount, the respondents would carry out shifting the electric wire/pole. In case, the petitioner is inclined to receive the compensation under the Section 164 of the Electricity Act read with Electricity Rules, and Sections 10, 16, 16 (1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1985) and for the said relief, he may move appropriate application before District Magistrate, Mau, who shall pass appropriate orders on the on the claim of the petitioner for compensation in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order..
Order Date :- 18.7.2023 Noman